Your House Is On Fire, Oh, I Didn’t Notice

September 22, 2009 | Filed Under ACORN, Anti-Americanism, Barack Obama, Budget, Business, Capitalism, Congress, Dan Scott, Democrats/Leftists, Economy/Finances, Government, Corruption, Journalism, Liberals, Media Bias, Society/Culture, Taxes |

-By Dan Scott

Liberals, their plans, veracity and activities have been under a lot of public scrutiny lately. They seem to be very uncomfortable with the light of public gaze upon them, even to the point of walking on eggshells. When they can’t find what they believe is an non revealing answer which they know will anger the public to some very straightforward questions they pretend to be obtuse on the issue at hand. Feigning obtuseness seems to be the best they can do to not come clean on the issues. The point of feigning obtuseness is to avoid the really uncomfortable questions of why they failed to respond to something, which so obviously is inappropriate. It’s the old, “what did you know” and “when did you know it” quagmire. The failure to respond appropriately is a very telling disconnect of “affect” which calls into question one’s competence, motives or agenda.

The disconnect of affect was raised to the ridiculous with the growing scandals involving ACORN. Charles Gibson, an ABC news anchor was asked why the media wasn’t covering the cut off of funds by Congress to ACORN. Gibson claimed he didn’t know anything about it. How likely was his answer? Let’s add some background context to answer that question. A person working for the media doesn’t know anything (to the point of cluelessness) about an organization squandering public funds engaging in clearly unethical activity caught on video tape, the story gone viral on the internet, talked about on the radio waves and reported on by at least one media outlet and one print outlet. Furthermore, the standard procedure for all media organizations is to monitor their competitors so they aren’t scooped which would cause a loss of ratings share. A loss of ratings share means a LOSS of advertising revenue, and that’s their lifeblood. Is it likely Charles Gibson didn’t know about the ACORN story? NOT LIKELY. Why did Gibson give such a lame response? To not answer the question what did you know, when did you know about it and what was your reason to not report on it? You notice Gibson never answered the question why he wasn’t reporting on it. It makes one wonder what else the media hasn’t covered and what were their reasons.

Our next obtuse candidate is FBI Director Robert Mueller. His response to ACORN in the news: “I think the first time I heard of this incident to which you refer was last evening,” Mueller said. “Clearly, given what you have said, it’s something in consultation with the Department of Justice that we would look at.” So the FBI Director is clueless as to an organization that has repeatedly been found to violate the law many times, is under investigation by many states and then has to consult with someone to think about investigating that organization? How likely is it that FBI Director Mueller was not aware that the organization called ACORN wasn’t in trouble with the Law? NOT LIKELY. Why did the FBI Director give such a weak response? To avoid the questions what the FBI knew and for what reason were they not aggressively pursuing an organization with a track record of problems. This would be like the FBI not monitoring the activities of the mafia to see what they were doing. What was the reason? Were they told to ignore the troubled organization? Since when does the FBI need to consult with the DOJ to follow leads and investigate 100% of the time? Why would the FBI need the DOJ to give them permission to pursue an obvious appearance of impropriety? It makes one wonder if the FBI is so obtuse about an organization with a track record of problems such as ACORN, what other groups are also not on the radar? Or worse, who at the DOJ is telling the FBI not to investigate?

Finally, the height of obtuseness over ACORN was demonstrated by President Obama. In his recent interview he claimed he was “unaware” of ACORN receiving federal funds. Let us get some context of the association President Obama has (on going) with ACORN. President Obama was their lawyer in Illinois and he sued Citibank on their behalf to make diversity loans, which ACORN was used to dole out those loans. President Obama as a candidate publicly stated that ACORN would be one of the organizations forming policy when he became president. Candidate Obama gave over $800,000 to ACORN to get out the vote. Candidate Obama gave his campaign contributor list to ACORN when his contributors reached their $2,300 contribution limits. What person would give huge sums of money and personal information to an organization they know very little? How likely is it that President Obama doesn’t know ACORN received public funds? NOT LIKELY. Why did President Obama play coy with the knowledge of ACORN’s funding? To avoid the questions what else he knew about ACORN, how much he kept abreast of their status and for what reason he continued to associate with them despite all the legal problems of this organization. President Obama would have us believe he is as oblivious of ACORN as he was of Reverend Wright and Governor Blagojevich.

There seems to be a pattern of behavior by these people in response to an organization that clearly should have raised the red flag of concern. The disconnect of affect by the media, the FBI and the President represents an on going pattern of intentional avoidance of problematic groups and people. The lack of discretion by each of them to the red flags rises to the level of collaboration when viewed beyond just ACORN. When secured bondholders for GM and Chrysler were threatened and extorted by government officials, neither the media, the FBI or President displayed the appropriate affect of behavior, which was unethical at best or illegal at worst. President Obama claimed neither he nor his staff knew anything (feigning obtuseness) of Governor’s Blagojevich’s attempt to sell his senatorial seat then withdrew Valerie Jarrett from consideration by the governor, the media and FBI played obtuse as well.

Are these events a series of disconnected incidents or is there a pattern? A pattern would suggest intentional cooperative action coordinated by a central actor for an agenda. How does one decide a series of event are a pattern, a coincidence or just isolated incidents? Firstly, when you deal with an individual or group is there repeat behavior, a common thread to suggest a method of operation (MO)? How often is the behavior repeated? Is there an attempt by the person or organization to improve their behavior, i.e. not repeat the same mistake over and over? When it comes to the appearance of impropriety, I have a saying for those who deny the obvious, “Once is an incident, twice is a coincidence and three times is a pattern.” The point of explaining away a situation is to avoid changing a behavior or cover up an agenda.

What is President Obama’s agenda in denying the obvious? Is he afraid the public will make the association between him and ACORN? Just as he shunned his association with Blagojevich and Reverend Wright, he continues to hide his association with questionable people. Barack Obama once said we should judge him by the people he who surrounds himself, why shouldn’t we hold him to his word? By his own standard then Barack Obama is no different than Reverend Wright, Governor Blagojevich and ACORN. The larger question then becomes are we prepared to be oblivious ourselves letting the media, the FBI and President Obama think their disconnect in affect is acceptable or do we make it known that such behavior is unacceptable and to demand accountability? Change happens only when we ourselves are willing to take up that responsibility.

Sources:

Charles Gibson

FBI Director Robert Mueller

Inside Obama’s ACORN

Obama on ACORN: ‘Not Something I’ve Followed Closely’ Won’t Commit to Cut Federal Funds

President Elect Oblivious

Chyslergate

$800,000 payment to ACORN

Obama the lawyer for ACORN

“Judge me by the people who surround me.”
———-
Dan Scott calls himself a “Member of the Global Capitalist Cabal preaching Capitalism and personal responsibility as the economic solution to world poverty.” He is also a member of the 14th Amendment Society — victimhood is a liberal code word for denying the civil rights of others. He is also a proud member of the Global Warming Denier Cabal, insisting that facts not agendas determine the truth.

Dan can be seen on the web at http://www.geocities.com/fightbigotry2002/ as well as http://www.geocities.com/dscott8186/saidwebpage.htm, And can be reached for comments at dscott8186@yahoo.com.

Fair Use: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site/blog for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Bookmark to: